Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Walter Ramsey v. Sachiko Ito

August 31, 2012

WALTER RAMSEY,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
SACHIKO ITO,
DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.



APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (FC-D NO. 06-1-3590)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

(By: Foley, Presiding Judge, Fujise and Ginoza, JJ.)

Plaintiff-Appellant Walter Ramsey (Husband) appeals from the Family Court of the First Circuit's (family court)*fn1

Divorce Decree filed June 19, 2008, which dissolved Husband's marriage with Defendant-Appellee Sachiko Ito (Wife). On appeal Husband argues that the family court erred in holding that a premarital agreement signed by Husband and Wife is enforceable pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 572D-6 (2006 Repl.). Husband raises the following points of error on appeal:

(1) The family court's Finding of Fact (FOF) No. 13 is clearly erroneous. FOF No. 13 states that "[t]he Premarital Agreement states that Husband and Wife provided each other with financial disclosures; Husband has not provided any proof that Wife's financial disclosures were not provided at the time of entering into the Premarital Agreement.";

(2) The family court's FOF No. 14 is clearly erroneous. FOF No. 14 states that "[a]s per the Premarital Agreement, Husband expressly waived "further information regarding the assets and liabilities or debts of [Wife].";

(3) The family court's FOF No. 19 is clearly erroneous. FOF No. 19 states that "[n]o testimony or evidence was provided as to whether Husband owned AOL stock at the time of the divorce.";

(4) The family court's FOF No. 20 is clearly erroneous. FOF No. 20 states that "[n]o proof was provided as to earnings that either Husband or Wife received and invested during the marriage.";

(5) The family court's Conclusions of Law (COL) Nos. 8, 9, and 10 are wrong. COL No. 8 states that "Husband and Wife were provided fair and reasonable disclosure of the property or financial obligations of the other party before executing the Premarital Agreement." COL No. 9 states that "Husband and Wife voluntarily and expressly waived, in writing, any right to disclosure of the property or financial obligations of the other party beyond the disclosure provided." COL No. 10 states that "Husband and Wife had, or reasonably could have had, an adequate knowledge of the property and financial obligation of the other party. No evidence was presented that either party requested further disclosure through counsel prior to signing the premarital agreement.";

(6) The family court's COL No. 11 is in error. COL No. 11 provides that "[t]he Premarital Agreement was not unconscionable when it was executed."; and

(7) The family court's COL Nos. 14 and 15 are in error. COL No. 14 states that "[t]he Premarital Agreement by and between Husband and Wife shall not be set aside." COL No. 15 states that "[a]ccordingly, as per the Premarital Agreement, Husband shall pay to Wife SIXTEEN HUNDRED AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($1,600.00) per month alimony for a period of thirty-six (36) months, commencing on April 15, 2008."

Upon careful review of the record, the briefs submitted, and the issues raised by the parties, we resolve ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.